Special issue Health promotion through leadership edited

Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 28(1-2), 2014 3 German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 28(1-2)

Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 28. Jahrgang, Heft 1-2, 2014, ZfP 28(1-2)

German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, Volume 28, Issue 1-2

Special issue

Health promotion through leadership edited by Jürgen Wegge, Meir Shemla, S. Alexander Haslam

Jürgen Wegge, Meir Shemla, S. Alexander Haslam

Leader behavior as a determinant of health at work: Specification and evidence of five key pathways 6

Ina Zwingmann, Jürgen Wegge, Sandra Wolf, Matthias Rudolf, Matthias Schmidt,

Peter Richter

Is transformational leadership healthy for employees? A multilevel analysis in 16 nations 24

Wladislaw Rivkin, Stefan Diestel, Klaus-Helmut Schmidt

The positive relationship between servant leadership and employees’ psychological health: A multi-method approach 52

Désirée Stocker, Nicola Jacobshagen, Rabea Krings, Isabel B. Pfister,

Norbert K. Semmer

Appreciative leadership and employee well-being in everyday working life 73

Eva Winkler, Christine Busch, Julia Clasen, Julia Vowinkel

Leadership behavior as a health-promoting resource for workers in low-skilled jobs and the moderating role of power distance orientation 96

Sabine Gregersen, Sylvie Vincent-Höper, Albert Nienhaus

Health–relevant leadership behaviour: A comparison of leadership constructs 117

Franziska Franke, Jörg Felfe, Alexander Pundt

The impact of health-oriented leadership on follower health: Development and test of a new instrument measuring health-promoting leadership 139

Megan Walsh, Kathryne Dupré, Kara A. Arnold

Processes through which transformational leaders affect employee psychological health 162

Niklas K. Steffens, S. Alexander Haslam, Rudolf Kerschreiter,

Sebastian C. Schuh, Rolf van Dick

Leaders enhance group members’ work engagement and reduce their burnout by crafting social identity 173

Call for Papers 195

Special issues 2004 – 2013 199

Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 28(1-2), 173-194 DOI 10.1688/ZfP-2014-01-Steffens ISSN (print) 0179-6437, ISSN (internet) 1862-0000 © Rainer Hampp Verlag, www.Hampp-Verlag.de

Niklas K. Steffens, S. Alexander Haslam, Rudolf Kerschreiter, Sebastian C. Schuh, Rolf van Dick* Leaders enhance group members’ work engagement and reduce their burnout by crafting social identity**

Previous research has examined burnout and work engagement as a function of de-mands and resources at work. Yet we know little about the ways in which these are determined by people’s social experience as a member of their workgroup as shaped, in particular, by leaders’ management of shared identity. To address these issues, we propose a model in which leaders’ identity entrepreneurship (the degree to which the leader promotes understanding of shared group identity) impacts on group perform-ance through burnout and work engagement. We tested our model in a field study with 641 participants from the US working population who responded to their work-group leader and indicated their health. Results indicated that when leaders acted as identity entrepreneurs, group members not only reported higher group performance but also experienced less burnout and were more engaged at work. Moreover, the rela-tionship between identity entrepreneurship and group performance was mediated by an increase in work engagement and a reduction in burnout both of which in turn fa-cilitated group performance. These findings suggest that what it means for health-protective leaders to be ‘transformational’ is being capable of facilitating the develop-ment of a special sense of ‘us’ that they and group members share. Key words: leadership, health, burnout, social identity,

identity entrepreneurship (JEL: I31, L21, M12)

___________________________________________________________________ * Niklas K. Steffens, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Australia. S. Alexander Haslam, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Australia. Rudolf Kerschreiter, Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin,

Germany. Sebastian C. Schuh, Department of Organizational Behavior, China Europe International

Business School, China. Rolf van Dick, Institute of Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Niklas K. Steffens,

School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia QLD 4072, Australia. E-mail: [email protected].

** This work has been supported by a grant (FL110100199) from the Australian Research Council awarded to the second author.

Article received: October 31, 2013 Revised version accepted after double blind review: March 4, 2014 Responsible action editor: Jürgen Weibler.

174 Steffens, Haslam, Kerschreiter, Schuh, van Dick: Health promotion through identity entrepreneurship

Leaders enhance group members’ work engagement and reduce their burnout by crafting social identity Stress and strain are increasingly common features of the modern workplace. Indeed, in some sense, they are emblematic of working life in the 21st century. Speaking to this point, key findings of the Fifth European Working Conditions Survey revealed that across the 27 EU member countries every fifth person at work has poor mental health (Eurofound, 2012). Such findings are remarkable because they point to signifi-cant costs not only for individuals (in terms of suffering) and society (in terms of eco-nomic expenditure on health) but also for organizations in which working conditions that compromise well-being lead to reduced motivation and ultimately lower produc-tivity. Addressing the policy implications of such findings, the European pact for mental health and well-being thus strongly recommends that stakeholders seek to “improve work organization, organization cultures, and leadership practices to pro-mote mental well-being at work” (p. 115; Eurofound, 2012). In practice, however, burnout and diminished well-being are mostly considered problems of the individual and it is the individual who is seen as responsible for prevention and recovery (e.g., by being encouraged to attend stress-management courses; see Haslam, 2004).

What can leaders do, however, to create “win–win arrangements” that enhance employees’ well-being at work? Should leaders encourage every individual to increase his or her effort to look after him or herself (e.g., through personalized health pro-grams and activities)? Or can they also alleviate each individual’s strain by working with, and promoting, individuals’ sense of togetherness (or ‘we-ness’)? These are the questions that the present paper addresses.

In fact, a large body of recent theoretical and empirical research serves to under-score the role that leaders’ management of groups (e.g., Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2006; van Knippenberg, 2011; Yammarino, Salas, Serban, Shirreffs, & Shuffler, 2012) and, in particular, identity entrepreneurship (i.e., leaders’ crafting of a shared sense of ‘we’ and ‘us’; Augoustinos & De Garis, 2012; Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011; Reicher & Hopkins, 2001, 2003) plays in effective leadership. In line with these points, the greater part of previous research has looked at the role of managing identity in providing a basis for leader influence and group effectiveness more generally (e.g., Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005). However, little if no research has investigated the capacity for identity entrepreneurship to contribute to group members’ health and well-being in the work-place. Addressing this gap, in the present research we test a model (represented sche-matically in Figure 1) that proposes that the degree to which leaders help to bring a workgroup together by creating a shared sense of social identity is associated with en-hanced work engagement and reduced burnout in the workplace, both of which facili-tate group performance. In this way the present paper contributes to an emerging body of research that points to the role of leadership in shaping employees’ health and well-being at work (for reviews see Kuoppala, Lamminpää, Liira, & Vainio, 2008; Ska-kon, Nielsen, Borg, & Guzman, 2010). However, it also extends upon prior work – and thereby opens up a variety of novel research avenues – by suggesting that leaders’ ability to create and shape social identity is a means of fostering group members’ health and well-being in the workplace.

Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 28(1-2), 173-194 DOI 10.1688/ZfP-2014-01-Steffens 175 German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 28(1-2), 173-194

Figure 1: A Leadership and Identity-Furthering Entrepreneurship (LIFE) model of the impact of leader identity entrepreneurship on group performance through group members’ work engagement and burnout

Leaders’ management of a group In recent years, research and theories have increasingly pointed to the role of groups and the management of groups in successful leadership (e.g., for a recent overview of leadership research, see Dinh, Lord, Gardner, Meuser, Liden, & Hu, 2014; see also Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen, 2007; Day et al., 2006; Haslam et al., 2011; Hogg, van Knippenberg, & Rast, 2012; Yammarino et al., 2012). Indeed, research across different theoretical traditions suggests that a critical ingredient in leaders’ suc-cess is their engagement with the group that promotes shared understanding among its members. Along these lines, in their research on ‘team leadership’, Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks (2002) suggest that for leaders to manage highly effective teams, they need to engage in activities that are oriented towards the team such that, among other things, they engage in behaviours that are conducive to sense making and sense giving as well as shared mental models (those that specify a mission, required actions, role requirements; after Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; for reviews on team leader-ship, see also Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). In addi-tion, it has been shown that leaders empower their teams and their members by get-ting team members together in ways that then allow them to build relationships with, and support, each other (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003). Together, this research suggests that enhancing group members’ perceptions that they and their leaders are ‘singing from the same song sheet’ is central to a leaders’ ability to enhance group perfor-mance.

Substantiating these claims, another theoretical tradition that has placed particular emphasis on issues of group management is the social identity approach to leadership (for comprehensive recent reviews, see Haslam et al., 2011; Hogg et al., 2012; van


Knippenberg, 2011). This approach builds on the idea that we are able to think of ourselves and others not only as individuals in terms of personal identity (i.e., ‘me’ and ‘you’) but also as members of a group in terms of social identity (i.e., ‘we’ and ‘us’; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994; for a recent review see Reicher, Spears, & Haslam, 2010). Moreover, it has been argued that this self-categorization in terms of shared social identity (e.g., as ‘us psychologists’) forms the basis for processes of social influence (Turner, 1991).

Applying these insights to the area of leadership and followership, it has been suggested that a leader’s effectiveness is contingent on the extent to which he or she is seen to be prototypical of a particular group (i.e., to embody attributes, beliefs, and val-ues that make a particular group ‘special’ and distinct from other groups; after Hogg, 2001; Turner & Haslam, 2001). Abundant evidence has supported these ideas. For in-stance, a leader’s perceived prototypicality has been shown to increase followers’ (a) endorsement of leaders (Ullrich, Christ, & van Dick, 2009), (b) trust in the leader (Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008), (c) perceptions of leader fairness (Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001), (d) perceptions of leader charisma (Platow, van Knippenberg, Haslam, van Knippenberg, & Spears, 2006; Steffens, Haslam, & Reicher, 2013), and (e) creativity and productivity (Hirst, van Dick, & van Knippenberg, 2009; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005)1.

Further empirical evidence supports these claims by showing that leaders’ effec-tiveness also depends on the degree to which their attributes are seen to be character-istic not only of typical leaders (e.g., what leaders are vs. are not normally like) but also of ideal leaders (e.g., what leaders are vs. are not ideally like; van Quaquebeke, Kerschreiter, Buxton, & van Dick, 2010; van Quaquebeke, van Knippenberg, & Brodbeck, 2010). In sum, then, this research underlines the broader point that leader effectiveness is determined in part by leaders being seen as representative of, and as being aligned with, the stereotypical attributes of a particular group.

More recently, though, it has been argued that effective leaders not only need to be seen to be representative of a group, but also need to create this group in the first place as well as then advance its interests and embed it in the material world (Haslam et al., 2011). Here research suggests that for leaders to be able to manage a group, they need to engage in identity entrepreneurship by crafting a sense of ‘us’ and by further-ing understanding of what it means to be ‘one of us’ (Reicher et al., 2005; Reicher & Hopkins, 2001, 2003; Steffens & Haslam, 2013; Steffens, Haslam, Kessler, & Ryan, 2013). In this way, this research suggests that leaders’ ability to exert influence over other people derives in part from actions aimed at (a) defining the boundaries of

1 Here, it is noteworthy then that the term leader prototypicality (or prototypes) has also

been used within leader categorization theory (Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984). Yet, as a point of difference, while leader prototypes as discussed above refer to those attributes that are characteristic of a particular group in question (e.g., a particular community, de-partment, or organization), in terms of leader categorization theory leader prototypes (or stereotypes) refer to those attributes that are seen to be leader-like (i.e., characteristic of the group of leaders in general that are more or less variable across cultures, see also Brodbeck et al., 2000; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004).


group membership (e.g., by making people feel who falls inside and outside ingroup boundaries) as well as (b) shaping what it means to be a member of the group (e.g., developing an understanding of the norms, values, and ideals that define the ingroup; Reicher et al., 2005). These aspects then have bearing upon the scope as well as direc-tion of influence (i.e., by determining who will be influenced and to what ends).

Leaders’ crafting of shared identity thus has direct implications for group mem-bers because people’s capacity to categorize themselves in terms of a group member-ship is a critical determinant of their motivation (and hence performance; Haslam, Powell, & Turner, 2000; van Knippenberg, 2000; see also Wendt, Euwema, & van Emmerik, 2009). Following on from this, because people’s self-categorization in terms of group membership relates to the performance of individual group members and the group as a whole (Ellemers, de Gilder, & Haslam, 2004; see also Zaccaro et al., 2002), we expect that leaders’ cultivating of shared identity also feeds into group members’ perceptions that they as a group are successful and performing well. This can be formalized in terms of the following hypothesis:

H1. Leader identity entrepreneurship will be positively related to group members’ perceptions of the performance of their workgroup.

Impact of leader identity entrepreneurship on work engagement and burnout Yet, beyond this relatively straightforward link to group performance, is it possible that leaders’ creation and furthering of shared identity also has an impact on peo-ple’s well-being at work? Evidence that this might be the case comes from research indicating that in addition to having impact on classical leadership outcomes such as performance, leaders are also capable of shaping group members’ health and well-being (Kuoppala et al., 2008; Skakon et al., 2010). Along these lines, research has demonstrated, for instance, that indicators of individuals’ well-being at work are re-lated to individuals’ belief that their leaders display transformational leadership (e.g., Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee, 2007; Nielsen, Randall, Yarker, & Brenner, 2008), supportive leadership (such as providing feedback and support; e.g., van Dierendonck, Haynes, Borrill, & Stride, 2004), or authentic leadership (e.g., Giallonardo, Wong, & Iwasiw, 2010). This research substantiates suggestions that leaders have an impact on followers’ health. Beyond this, though, whether (or not) leaders’ management of group membership has any role to play in group members’ well-being remains largely unchartered.

This is somewhat surprising given that a growing body of research suggests that social factors – and, in particular, group memberships – are fundamental to people’s health and well-being (e.g., Cruwys et al., 2013, in press; Haslam, Jetten, Postmes, & Haslam, 2009; Helliwell & Putnam, 2004; Jetten, Haslam, & Haslam, 2012). More spe-cifically, empirical evidence shows that people tend to experience better health and well-being to the degree that they identify with a group (or groups) such that they cat-egorize themselves in terms of a shared group membership (as ‘us’) rather than as in-dividuals (as ‘I’; e.g., Haslam, O'Brien, Jetten, Vormedal, & Penna, 2005; Sani, Herrera, Wakefield, Boroch, & Gulyas, 2012; Wegge, Schuh, & van Dick, 2012; for recent re-


views see Schuh, van Dick, Wegge, & Haslam, 2013; van Dick & Haslam, 2012). Along these lines, Haslam and Reicher (2006) have shown experimentally that the ex-tent to which people perceive themselves in terms of a group membership is related to reduced experience of burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001), while field research by Wegge, van Dick, Fisher, Wecking, and Moltzen (2006) has demonstrated that call centre workers’ increased identification with their organization is negatively associated with burnout. Extending this line of analysis, we propose that by creating a sense of ‘us’ among group members as well as providing guidance by clarifying what this ‘we’ stands for, leaders’ increased identity entrepre-neurship should also help protect group members’ well-being as indicated by their re-duced experience of burnout.

While classical research on health and well-being at work had focussed primarily on indicators of the absence of ill-health, more recent research has begun to comple-ment prior work by examining indicators of the presence of well-being (inspired by an emphasis on positive psychology and subjective well-being; Diener, 2000; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In this regard, with the aim of gaining a more comprehensive understanding of well-being in the workplace, and as an antipode to stress and burn-out, Bakker, Schaufeli, and colleagues (e.g., Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006; Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002) have sought to investigate people’s engagement at work (for comprehensive re-views, see Bakker, Albrecht, & Leiter, 2011; Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011). This work engagement is typically conceptualized as capturing the extent to which people feel vigour at work, are dedicated to what they do, and are also absorbed in their work. In line with original propositions that well-being at work comprises distinct positive and negative aspects, meta-analytic evidence demonstrates that engagement and burn-out are clearly distinct concepts (Halbesleben, 2010).

More broadly, we propose that there are promising ways that allow us to integrate research on the job demands-resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker et al., 2011) and the social identity approach to health and well-being (Haslam et al., 2009; Jetten et al., 2012). In particular the social identity approach is consistent with the job demands-resources model in stressing (a) that people can experience demands and resources at work and (b) that such experiences are related to subsequent well-being. However, the social identity approach would specify that while social identities in and of themselves guide and motivate particular forms of behaviour and tend to have beneficial health implications, self-categorization in terms of a particular identity is a necessary precursor to people’s perception and experience of particular demands and resources in the workplace (Haslam & Reicher, 2006; van Dick & Haslam; 2012). By way of example – and as demonstrated by Haslam and colleagues (2005) – while tasks that involve serving needy customers behind the counter are not perceived as particularly stressful by either bomb disposal workers or bar staff, working with sup-posedly dangerous explosive materials is perceived as stressful by bar staff but not by bomb disposal workers. In sum, beyond the idea that is tested in the present research – namely, that direct health benefits can result from leaders’ creation of a shared social identity – we would also expect issues related to self-categorization and social identifi-


cation to have broader implications for people’s perception of health-related demands and resources at work.

Speaking to the influence of leaders, then, we suggest that individuals are more likely to be engaged at work when they have a better understanding of the meaning and purpose of the group they belong to and of what it stands for in relation to other groups. Accordingly, leaders who foster such a sense of shared identity and clarify its content are likely to enhance people’s work engagement. Some tentative evidence for this assertion can be found in studies that have shown that people’s psychological ad-justment is positive related to their personal self-concept clarity (e.g., Campbell, Assanand, & Paula, 2003) and that people’s well-being in terms of positive affect and self-esteem are positively related to their self-concept clarity with regard to their cul-tural identity (Usborne & Taylor, 2010). By the same token, we propose that people’s reduced experience of burnout and greater engagement should also be positively relat-ed to the understanding of self that is derived from their collective workgroup as fos-tered by leaders’ identity entrepreneurship. More formally, these arguments lead us to the following two hypotheses:

H2a and H2b. Leader identity entrepreneurship will be (a) positively related to group members’ work engagement and (b) negatively related to their burn-out.

Impact of identity entrepreneurship on performance through enhanced well-being The foregoing discussion might lead one to suspect that leader identity entrepreneur-ship has independent impact on employees’ performance and health. However, previ-ous research suggests that although issues of performance and health are often dis-cussed in separate fora, they are actually inter-related and mutually dependent on each other. Indeed, although under some conditions performance may lead to greater well-being, growing evidence indicates that the link from well-being to performance may be stronger (for a discussion and meta-analysis on the relationship between burnout and performance, see Taris, 2006). Along these lines, Lyubomirsky, King, and Diener (2005) provide meta-analytic evidence which indicates that subjective well-being pre-cedes personal success and performance at work (see also Boehm & Lyubomirsky, 2008).

Speaking more closely to the issues of the present research, Halbesleben and Wheeler (2011) found that employees’ daily variations in their exhaustion was nega-tively related to their in-role performance, while Christian and colleagues’ (2011) meta-analysis indicated that work engagement mediates the effects that a variety of contex-tual work factors have on people’s in-role as well as extra-role performance. In line with these findings, we suggest that leaders’ identity entrepreneurship is likely to have an impact on group performance partly by means of reducing group members’ strain as well as enhancing their engagement. More specifically, leaders who act as identity en-trepreneurs (Haslam et al., 2011; Reicher et al., 2005) should have a protective impact on group members’ strain which in turn should mitigate the negative impact that strain has on performance. At the same time, leader identity entrepreneurship should


have a boosting impact on group members’ engagement, which in turn should rein-force the positive impact of work engagement on performance. This can be formal-ized in terms of a third hypothesis:

H3a and H3b. The positive impact of leader identity entrepreneurship on members’ perceptions of the performance of their workgroup will be mediated by their (a) increased work engagement and (b) reduced experience of burnout.

Method Participants and design Six-hundred-and-ninety-nine participants from the general public in the United States were willing to take part in the present online survey for exchange of a small reim-bursement after being recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (for comprehensive reviews of this tool, see Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gos-ling, 2011; Goodman, Cryder, & Cheema, 2013). Participation required respondents to have work experience and the survey was advertised as ‘Evaluation of workgroups and leaders’. The failure of 54 participants to respond to two control questions as request-ed (“This is a control question – please select 3”) and missing data in four cases led to a total sample size of 641.

Participants’ demographic characteristics indicated that around half the partici-pants were female (315; 1 missing) and that their age ranged from 18 to 71 years (M = 32.51; SD = 11.02). Participants worked in a variety of different industries (e.g., retail, research, public sector) while the vast majority were white-collar workers. They had an average of 13 years work experience (SD = 10.05) gained in five different organiza-tions (SD = 5.32). Their current workgroup had on average of 12 members (SD = 20.71) and they had been working with their current workgroup leader for an average of three years (SD = 2.94).

Procedure and measures Participants were asked to reflect on their current workgroup and workgroup leader before responding on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely) to items assessing leader’s identity entrepreneurship2 (four items, ơ = .95, from the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) by Steffens, Haslam, Reicher, Platow, Fransen et al., 2014: “This leader makes people feel as if they are part of the same group”, “This leader creates a sense of cohesion within the group”, “This leader develops an understanding of what it means to be a member of this group”, “This leader shapes members’ per-ceptions of this group’s values and ideals”) and on scales ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always/every day) to items assessing work engagement (nine items, ơ = .93, from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) by Schaufeli et al., 2006, assessing vigour: “At my work, I feel bursting with energy”, “At my job, I feel strong and vigorous”, “When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work”; dedication: “I am enthusiastic about my job”, “My job inspires me”, “I am proud of the work that I do”; absorption: 2 Participants’ responses to the four items assessing leader identity entrepreneurship are al-

so reported in Steffens et al. (2014) as part of the scale development of the construct.


“I feel happy when I am working intensely”, “I am immersed in my work”, “I get car-ried away when I am working”). Moreover, they also responded on 7-point Likert scales to items assessing burnout3 (six items, ơ = .78, from Haslam & Reicher, 2006, as-sessing exhaustion: “I feel I am working too hard”, “I feel exhausted”; lack of person-al accomplishment: “I feel I am failing to achieve my goals”; “I feel frustrated”; cal-lousness: “I don’t really care what happens to people any more”; “I feel I am becom-ing callous towards other people”) and perceived performance of their workgroup (four items, ơ = .96: “This group as a whole displays high performance”, “This group brings good results”, “This group as a whole is successful”, “This group is very productive”). After this, participants provided demographic details and were fully debriefed.

Results Preliminary analyses Addressing common method variance and establishing construct validity Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations are presented in Table 1. Results show that the independent variable was significantly correlated with the mediator vari-ables and the dependent variable, with correlations ranging in absolute size between .37 and .61 (these were largely unrelated to workgroup members’ key demographic variables displayed in the table, with the exception that members’ work engagement was weakly but positively related to their age and as results of main analyses are virtu-ally identical when controlling for demographic variables, we refrain from adding the-se as control variables). To address potential confounding effects due to common-method variance between independent, mediating, and dependent variables, we inves-tigated whether more than 50% the variance could be explained by a single factor (conducting Harman’s single factor test; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). An unrotated factor solution indicated that eigenvalues of the first eight factors (9.49, 3.18, 2.09, 1.43, 1.15, .89, .77, .52) explained 41.28%, 13.82%, 9.09%, 6.24%, 4.98%, 3.89%, 3.37%, and 2.25% of the variance, respectively. This therefore suggests that the maximum variance accounted for by a single factor is less than half of the to-tal variance.

We then conducted a confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to examine the factor structure of the present constructs. Consistent with traditional conceptualizations of work engagement and burnout, the subcomponents vigour, dedication, and absorp-tion were specified as second-order factors of work engagement, while the subcom-ponents exhaustion, lack of personal accomplishment, and callousness as second-order factors of burnout. However, to differentiate more clearly between positive and negative indicators of well-being at work, previous research has also suggested an al-ternative conceptualization of these constructs such that the two burnout dimensions

3 Participants also responded to three additional reversed (negatively framed) items to as-

sess burnout. Because empirical investigation demonstrated that inclusion of these items increased measurement error by reducing the fit of the constructs to the data to a poor level (CFA results with all constructs including these additional three items: Ʒ2(287) = 6.216, CFI = .890, RMSEA = .090, 90% CIs = .086, .094, SRMR = .112), we refrained from including these items in subsequent analyses.


exhaustion and callousness are combined into a factor reflecting ‘core burnout’ while the dimension personal accomplishment and the three dimensions of work engage-ment are combined into a factor reflecting ‘extended engagement’ (Schaufeli et al., 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2002). To investigate the fit of these alternative conceptualiza-tions, we also specified a model with the respective four second-order factors for ex-tended work engagement and the two second-order factors for core burnout. Table 1: Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations between variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Leader Identity Entrepreneurshipa

4.73 1.69 -

2. Group Member Work Engagementb

3.47 1.20 .37** -

3. Group Member Burnouta 3.08 1.24 -.40** -.37** -

4. Perceived Group Performancea 5.35 1.40 .61** .49** -.39** -

5. Group Sizec 7.00 5.00 .04 .04 -.03 .05 -

6. Group Member Work Experience 12.88 10.05 -.04 .11** -.04 .03 .09* -

7. Group Member Genderd 1.49 .50 -.02 .01 -.02 -.03 -.01 .05 -

8. Group Member Age 32.51 11.02 -.03 .10* -.03 .03 .09* .90** .05 -

Note. * p < .05* , ** p < .01; N=641; a Ratings on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely); b Ratings on 7-point scales ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always/every day); c As a few participants worked in very large groups which skewed the distribution of group size, median and interquartile range are indicated; d Male and female coded as 1 and 2, respectively. In sum, to examine the discriminant validity of our constructs, we examined the fit of a four-factor model (Model A) that distinguished between identity entrepreneurship, work engagement, burnout, and perceived performance (in terms of chi-square Ʒ2, comparative fit (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and stand-ardized root mean square residuals (SRMR); Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). We then compared this model’s fit to the data to that of alternative models with fewer fac-tors, that is, the three-factor Model B that combined the two proposed mediators work engagement and burnout in a common factor, the three-factor Model C that combined identity entrepreneurship and perceived performance in a common factor, the one-factor Model D that combined all constructs in a single factor, as well as the four-factor Model E with the alternative conceptualizations extended work engage-ment and core burnout (any alternative models omitting second-order factors burnout and work engagement showed poorer fit and are not considered here). CFA results are presented in Table 2. As can be seen in the table, overall, Model A had a moderate and acceptable fit to the data. Speaking to potential alternative conceptualizations, Model B, Model C, and Model D all showed overall poor fit to the data, while Model E showed an overall marginal fit to the data. This suggests that treating the variables as four distinct constructs – in line with our theoretical expectations – is the strategy best supported by the data. Because Model E showed poorer fit than Model A, we re-frain from analysing extended work engagement and core burnout.


Table 2: Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) results concerning factor structure of examined constructs

Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E

Four-factor model distin-guishing all variables

Three-factor model combining

leader identity entrepreneurship and performance

Three-factor model combining

work engage-ment and burnout

One-factor model combining all

variables in sin-gle common

factor

Four-factor model with ex-tended work engagement

and core burnout

Chi-square 980.14 2706.64 2994.65 3860.61 1240.623

Degrees of freedom 218 221 223 224 218

Chi-square/df 4.496 12.247 13.429 17.235 5.691

CFI .940 .803 .780 .711 .919

RMSEA .074 .133 .139 .159 .086

RMSEA 90% CIs [.069, .079] [.128, .137] [.135, .144] [.155, .164] [.081, .090]

Std. RMR .056 .084 .104 .131 .078

Note. Model A, B, C, and D are based on traditional conceptualizations of work engagement (encompassing the three second-order factors vigour, dedication, and absorption) and (encompassing the three second-order factors exhaustion, lack of per-sonal accomplishment, and callousness); Model E is based on alternative conceptualizations of ‘extended work engagement’ (encompassing the four second-order factors vigour, dedication, absorption, and personal accomplishment) and ‘core burnout’ (encompassing the two second-order factors exhaustion and callousness).

Primary analyses

Impact of leader identity entrepreneurship on well-being and performance (H1 and H2) To test whether leaders’ identity entrepreneurship was related to well-being measures as well as group members’ perceptions of the performance of their workgroup, we ran a series of linear regressions (for the sake of continuity with sub-sequent analyses, we ran linear regressions although results are identical to the re-sults of bivariate correlations). Supporting H1, analyses revealed that the extent to which leaders engaged in identity entrepreneurship was positively related to mem-bers’ perceived performance of their workgroup, Ƣ = .61, t(640) = 19.44, p < .001. Moreover, supporting H2, analyses indicated that the degree to which leaders en-gaged in identity entrepreneurship was (a) positively related to group members’ work engagement, Ƣ = .37, t(640) = 9.93, p < .001, and (b) negatively related to their experienced burnout, Ƣ = –.40, t(640) = –10.92, p < .001.

Multiple mediation by work engagement and burnout (H3) To examine whether the impact of leaders’ identity entrepreneurship on group mem-bers’ perceived performance of their workgroup was mediated by members’ well-being, we ran parallel multiple mediation bias-corrected bootstrapping resampling method with 5000 resamples (by means of PROCESS; Preacher & Hayes, 2008; up-dated by Hayes, 2013). In contrast to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) proposed procedure, this bias-corrected bootstrapping analysis has several advantages. These include the capacity to estimate the specific indirect effect of a mediator more accurately and to test simultaneously each mechanism while controlling for the shared association be-


tween multiple mediators. Regression coefficients, standard errors, and model statis-tics are summarized in Table 3, while the model’s path coefficients are presented graphically in Figure 2. Figure 2: Statistical mediation model displaying coefficients of indirect paths of leader

identity entrepreneurship on group performance through group members’ work engagement and burnout

Table 3: Regression coefficients, standard errors, and model summary information

for the influence of the presumed leader identity entrepreneurship multiple mediator model depicted in Figure 1 with traditional conceptualizations of work engagement and burnout Consequent

M1 (Work

Engagement) M2 (Burnout) Y (Group

Performance)

Antecedent Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p Coeff. SE p

X (Leader Id. Entrepreneurship) a1 .26 .03 < .001 a2 – .29 .03 < .001 c’ .39 .03 < .001

M1 (Work Engagement) –– –– –– –– –– –– b1 .32 .04 < .001

M2 (Burnout) –– –– –– –– –– –– b2 – .12 .04 .001

Constant iM1 2.24 .13 < .001 iM1 4.46 .13 < .001 iy 2.76 .24 < .001

R2 = .14 R2 = .16 R2 = .46

F(1,641) = 98.52, p < .001 F(1,641) = 119.25, p < .001 F(1,641) = 181.05, p < .001

As can be seen in Table 3, analysis revealed that the indirect path of identity entrepre-neurship on perceived group performance through work engagement was indeed sig-nificant, ƣ = .08, SE = .01, 95% CIs = .06, .12, supporting H3a. The indirect effect through work engagement arose from two positive constituent effects. These suggest


that to the extent that leaders engaged in greater identity entrepreneurship, team members’ perceptions of group performance were increased as a result of fostering members’ work engagement (because a1 is positive) which, in turn, had a reinforcing impact on perceived performance (because b1 is positive). Moreover, in support of H3b, leaders’ identity entrepreneurship indirectly affected team members’ perceived performance of their group through members’ experienced burnout, ƣ = .03, SE = .01, 95% CIs = .01, .06. This second indirect effect through burnout consisted of two negative constituent effects. Here, leaders’ identity entrepreneurship was positively re-lated to group performance as a result of diminishing group members’ burnout (be-cause a2 is negative) which in turn limited the negative impact that burnout had on perceived performance (because b2 is negative). Multiple mediation analysis thus sug-gests that identity entrepreneurship was related to performance via a positive path in-volving work engagement as well as negative path involving (lack of) burnout. Multi-ple mediation analysis with age as a control variable (as age was correlated with work engagement in the present sample), yielded virtually identical results.4

Calculation of the ratio of the overall indirect effect (through both work engage-ment and burnout), ƣ = .12, SE = .02, 95% CIs = .09, .16, to the total effect, ƣ = .51, SE = .03, 95% CIs = .46, .56, indicated that the proposed mediators explained about 23% of the total effect of identity entrepreneurship on group performance (Hayes, 2013). We also calculated whether (or not) the strength of the specific indirect effects differed in their strength from each other (using bias-corrected bootstrapping that specifies a contrast between the mediators; Hayes, 2013). Analysis indicated that the indirect effect of the contrast between work engagement and burnout was statistically different from zero, ƣ = .05, SE = .02, 95% CIs = .01, .09. Thus the indirect effect of identity entrepreneurship that involved the reinforcing path through group members’ work engagement was more pronounced than the negative path involving burnout.

Discussion The present research was designed to examine the impact of leader identity entrepre-neurship not only on perceived group performance but also on group members’ health and well-being at work. Supporting our theoretical model (see Figure 1), the present findings indicate that group members report greater group performance when they perceive their leaders as bringing the group together and creating a shared sense of identity (H1). Moreover, leader identity entrepreneurship was also found to be positively related to group members’ work engagement and to be negatively related to their burnout (H2). Finally, there was evidence that the relationship between leader identity entrepreneurship and group performance was mediated by group members’ increased health and well-being (H3). Specifically, in support of our model, leader identity entrepreneurship enhanced group members’ work engagement which in turn strengthened the positive effect that work engagement had on group performance. 4 Multiple mediation analysis with age as covariate indicated that the indirect effect of iden-

tity entrepreneurship on perceived performance through work engagement was statistical-ly different from zero, ƣ = .08; SE = .01, 95% CIs = .06, .11, as was the indirect effect through burnout, ƣ = .03; SE = .01, 95% CIs = .01, .06, ruling out spurious relationships due to age in the main analyses.


At the same time, leader identity entrepreneurship reduced group members’ expe-rience of burnout, thereby alleviating the harmful impact that burnout exerted on per-formance. Findings indicated, though, that despite the fact that the relationship be-tween leader identity entrepreneurship on performance ran in parallel fashion and in-dependently through increased work engagement and reduced burnout, the indirect path through positive indications of health (work engagement) was stronger than that through the absence of ill-health (burnout).

Theoretical and practical implications Taken together, these findings contribute to our understanding of leaders’ capacity to promote employees’ health – and of the means by which they do this – in at least three important ways. First, by demonstrating an association between leaders’ identity entrepreneurship and group members’ burnout and work engagement, the present ex-amination breaks new conceptual ground by being the study first to assess group members’ perceptions of leader identity entrepreneurship explicitly in quantitative terms (something that had typically been assessed previously only using qualitative analysis; Augoustinos & De Garis, 2012; Haslam & Reicher, 2007; Reicher & Hop-kins, 1996, 2001, 2003; Reicher et al., 2005). On top of this, it also breaks new theoret-ical ground by demonstrating the utility of the social identity approach to leadership – and in particular leaders’ crafting of social identity – in the area of health and well-being (Haslam et al., 2011; Jetten et al., 2012). More specifically, findings suggest that leaders play an important role in nurturing group members’ psychological well-being by crafting a sense of ‘us’ that involves both (a) making people feel that they are part of the group and (b) clarifying what the group as a whole stands for (in terms of its norms, values, goals, and vision).

Second, the present findings also have implications for examinations of burnout and work engagement (Bakker et al., 2008; Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli et al., 2002; 2006) in suggesting that although these may be experienced as something very person-al and manifest at the level of the individual, burnout and work engagement are also shaped by individuals’ experiences as group members reflecting the degree to which their sense of ‘we-ness’ is created and is being developed by their leader. Thus in pointing to the importance of social factors in people’s health and well-being, the findings complement research which suggests that employees’ health and well-being are related to personal characteristics of the individual such as hardiness and attributional style (Eschleman, Bowling, & Alarcon, 2010; Proudfoot, Corr, Guest, & Dunn, 2009). Moreover, and potentially more importantly, these findings also offer novel opportunities for practical leadership interventions to improve employee health (for reviews see Day et al., 2006; Avolio, Reichard, Hannah, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2009; Taylor, Russ-Eft, & Taylor, 2009). These would also differ from more conven-tional well-being and stress reduction programs (e.g., those involving relaxation clas-ses, massage therapy, gym classes), whose focus is on the individual rather than the broader social context that affect individuals’ sense of self (Helliwell, 2011; Sani et al., 2012). More particularly, the present findings make the case for leadership interven-tions that help to create work environments which allow employees to embrace and live out group memberships at various levels of abstraction (e.g., the workgroup, de-


partment, organisation as a whole) and which, rather than focussing on leaders or on followers alone, are conducted with leaders and followers together (Kellerman, 2012; Küpers & Weibler, 2008).

More specifically, in terms of implications for practice, organizations that aim to promote employees’ health and performance may thus support leaders at various lev-els of the organizational hierarchy in their efforts to create a sense of shared identity for members of the particular group that they are leading. Indeed, particularly for those organizations in which a diversity of subgroup identities prevail, our findings suggest that well-being will be enhanced if organizations encourage leaders to engage with and promote those diverse identities rather than to ignore or subvert them (e.g., along lines suggested by Haslam, Eggins, & Reynolds, 2003). This is not to say that organizations should refrain from creating and advancing a strong sense of superordi-nate organizational identity (partly because we know that organizational identification tends to have a positive impact on health; van Dick & Haslam, 2012). Rather they may be more effective in enhancing employees’ well-being if they provide structures that help to sustain organizational identities defined at multiple levels of abstraction.

More generally, though, leaders of workgroups, teams, or departments who want to foster well-being at work might be well advised to think carefully about processes of social identity management. In particular, they might benefit from strategies that engage with what Haslam et al. (2011) describe as the “Three Rs” of identity leadership: (1) by reflecting on the nature of social identities in their organization (e.g., by Ascertaining Identity Resources; AIRing; Eggins, O'Brien, Reynolds, Haslam, & Crocker, 2008; Pe-ters, Haslam, Ryan, & Steffens, 2014), (2) by representing those identities (e.g., by estab-lishing meaningful group boundaries and developing shared understanding through the process of sub-group caucusing; Haslam et al., 2003), and (3) by initiating activities and structures that help to realize those identities (e.g., through collective goal-setting; Haslam, Wegge, & Postmes, 2009).

Finally, the present findings align with previous research which indicates that leaders play a central role in shaping group members’ health and well-being in the workplace (Kuoppala et al., 2008; Skakon et al., 2010). However, they also extend this previous work by suggesting that leaders can exert an impact on group members’ health and well-being not so much through their personal qualities or (exceptional, transformational) behaviours in the abstract as through behaviours that promote the strengthening of group members’ sense of a collective identity that they share with those leaders (Haslam et al., 2011; Reicher et al., 2005). Looked at through the lens of research that sees transformational leadership as one of the key solutions to employee health and well-being (Arnold et al., 2007; Kovjanic, Schuh, & Jonas, 2013; Nielsen et al., 2008; for a review see Skakon et al., 2010), another way of making sense of the present findings is to suggest that what it means for leaders who practice health-protective lead-ership to be ‘transformational’ is for them to facilitate sustainable forms of group membership among those they lead. Indeed, in line with van Knippenberg and Sitkin’s (2013) assertions that rather than examining leadership processes by operationalizing transformational lead-ership in terms of the outcomes we want to explain, we might gain insights into, and understanding of, the process of leadership better if we strive to explain this very fea-ture rather than seeing it as the feature that does the explaining. Critically, then, the


present research suggests that the source of this transformational impact derives from leaders’ capacity to manage social identity effectively and in ways that in turn allow for the creation of fulfilling and meaningful social bonds. In short, good leaders not only craft a special sense of ‘us’, but by doing so they also help make groups good for us.

Limitations and future research Despite its various strengths, the present research has a number of shortcomings that future research should address. Most particularly, the present design relied on self-report data that may have increased common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Although these issues cannot be ruled out with certainty (bearing in mind that mono-method and self-report data are not necessarily subject to greater biases than other methods such as multi-method data or experimental designs; Spector, 2006), we addressed these in preliminary analyses that suggest that the present variables should be treated as clearly distinct variables. Although it is possible that (at least to some de-gree) reporting elevated group performance also enhances respondents’ well-being and makes them more likely to see their leaders as identity entrepreneurs, previous re-search provides stronger evidence for the present analyses in so far as there is abun-dant evidence that leaders’ identity entrepreneurship shapes follower responses (e.g., Haslam et al., 2011) and that well-being feeds into performance (e.g., Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Nevertheless, it would be worthwhile for future research to provide further evidence for the role of leader identity entrepreneurship in health and well-being by means of a variety of different methodologies including (a) experimental (intervention) research (Avolio et al., 2009), (b) longitudinal design (see also Gleibs et al., 2011; Has-lam & Reicher, 2006) and (c) examinations of physiological functioning (Häusser, Kattenstroth, van Dick, & Mojzisch, 2012; Wegge et al., 2012).

Moreover, future research also needs to disentangle potential differential effects of leaders’ identity entrepreneurship on different forms of performance. Along these lines, examining the degree to which the present relationships also extend to objective group performance as well as to individuals’ in-role as well as various forms of extra-role performance would be valuable. Here, it is also worth pointing out that in the present research leader identity entrepreneurship and group performance related to the group as a whole, which we examined at the level of the individual. In this sense, it is individuals’ sense of group issues as represented in the mind of the individual (ra-ther than actual sharedness in terms of individuals’ sense of sharedness) that mattered (see also Turner, 1982). This is not to say that issues related to actual sharedness are not important or theoretically meaningless. In fact, we believe that issues related to ac-tual sharedness are important and interesting (Yammarino & Dansereau, 2008) and in future research should investigate systematically when and why actual sharedness be-tween individuals’ representation of leaders’ creation of shared identity may explain incremental variance.

We also need to identify potential boundary conditions to our analysis. For in-stance, in line with previous research that has shown that the precise content of an identity shapes people’s health behaviours (e.g., Tarrant, Haggar, & Farrow, 2012), it is possible that beyond the health protective effects of leader identity entrepreneurship, such leaders may also have harmful effects on group members’ health to the extent


that they promote group norms and ideals that are unhealthy (e.g., unhealthy lifestyle or coping mechanisms) or contribute to employees’ workaholism that in turn has neg-ative effects on their health (Avanzi, van Dick, Fraccaroli, & Sarchielli, 2012). These are important issues with potential ethical implications that need further attention. In sum, in terms of its capacity to satiate our appetite for greater understanding of these issues, the present research is best seen as breakfast rather than dinner.

Conclusion The present paper expands upon previous work by investigating the impact of leader identity entrepreneurship not only on group members’ reported group performance but also on their work engagement and burnout. In doing this, the research is the first to demonstrate the usefulness of a social identity approach to leadership for an under-standing of team members’ well-being. Specifically, our findings suggest that leaders are able to foster engagement and to prevent strain among group members by creating a shared special sense of ‘us’ as well as helping to clarify what it means to be ‘one of us’. Indeed, it appears that a leader who fails to craft a shared sense of ‘us’ will not on-ly be ineffective in directing group members’ energies, but is also likely to sap these energies altogether.

References Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational leader-

ship and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 193-203.

Augoustinos, M., & De Garis, S. (2012). ‘Too black or not black enough’: Social identity complexity in the political rhetoric of Barack Obama. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 564-577.

Avanzi, L., van Dick, R., Fraccaroli, F., & Sarchielli, G. (2012). The downside of organizational identifica-tion: Relationships between identification, workaholism and well-being. Work & Stress, 26, 289-307.

Avolio, B. J., Reichard, R. J., Hannah, S. T., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2009). A meta-analytic review of leadership impact research: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies. The Leadership Quar-terly, 20, 764-784.

Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 4-28.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328.

Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22, 187-200.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychologi-cal research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 51, 1173-1182.

Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental re-search: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368.

Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Does happiness promote career success? Journal of Career Assess-ment, 16, 101-116.

Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Akerblom, S., Audia, G., Bakacsi, G., Bendova, H., & Wunderer, R. (2000). Cultural variation of leadership prototypes across 22 European countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 1-29.

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inex-pensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.


Campbell, J. D., Assanand, S., & Paula, A. D. (2003). The structure of the selfǦconcept and its relation to psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 115-140.

Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 331-346.

Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89-136.

Cruwys, T., Dingle, G. A., Haslam, C., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., & Morton, T. A. (2013). Social group memberships protect against future depression, alleviate depression symptoms and prevent depres-sion relapse. Social Science and Medicine, 98, 179-186.

Cruwys, T., Haslam, S. A., Dingle, G. A., Haslam, C., & Jetten, J. (in press). Depression and social identi-ty: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review.

Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold of a new era. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 211-216.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national in-dex. American Psychologist, 55, 34-43.

Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Lead-ership Quarterly, 25, 36-62.

Dobbins, G. H., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1986). The effects of group cohesion and leader behavior on subordi-nate satisfaction. Group & Organization Management, 11, 203-219.

Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435-457.

Eggins, R. A., O'Brien, A. T., Reynolds, K. J., Haslam, S. A., & Crocker, A. S. (2008). Refocusing the fo-cus group: AIRing as a basis for effective workplace planning. British Journal of Management, 19, 277-293.

Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459-478.

Eschleman, K. J., Bowling, N. A., & Alarcon, G. M. (2010). A meta-analytic examination of hardiness. In-ternational Journal of Stress Management, 17, 277-307.

Eurofound (2012). Fifth European working conditions survey. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg.

Giallonardo, L. M., Wong, C. A., & Iwasiw, C. L. (2010). Authentic leadership of preceptors: predictor of new graduate nurses' work engagement and job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 993-1003.

Giessner, S. R., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). “License to Fail”: Goal definition, leader group proto-typicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 14-35.

Gleibs, I. H., Haslam, C., Jones, J. M., Haslam, S. A., McNeill, J., & Connolly, H. (2011). No country for old men? The role of a ‘Gentlemen's Club’ in promoting social engagement and psychological well-being in residential care. Aging and Mental Health, 15, 456-466.

Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk Samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213-224.

Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). New York: Psychology Press.

Halbesleben, J. R., & Wheeler, A. R. (2011). I owe you one: Coworker reciprocity as a moderator of the dayǦlevel exhaustion–performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 608-626.

Haslam, S. A. (2001/2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London & Thousands Oaks, CA US: Sage.


Haslam, S. A., Eggins, R. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing Social and Per-sonal Identity Resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-tional Psychology, 76, 83-113.

Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2009). Social identity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 1-23.

Haslam, S. A., O'Brien, A., Jetten, J., Vormedal, K., & Penna, S. (2005). Taking the strain: Social identity, social support, and the experience of stress. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 355-370.

Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. (2000). Social identity, selfǦcategorization, and work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organisational out-comes. Applied Psychology, 49, 319-339.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2006). Stressing the group: Social identity and the unfolding dynamics of responses to stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1037-52.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2007). Identity entrepreneurship and the consequences of identity failure: The dynamics of leadership in the BBC Prison Study. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 125-147.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. London & New York: Psychology Press.

Haslam, S. A., Wegge, J., & Postmes, T. (2009). Are we on a learning curve or a treadmill? The benefits of participative group goal setting become apparent as tasks become increasingly challenging over time. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 430-446.

Häusser, J. A., Kattenstroth, M., van Dick, R., & Mojzisch, A. (2012). “We” are not stressed: Social iden-tity in groups buffers neuroendocrine stress reactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 973-977.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based ap-proach. London & New York: Guilford Press.

Helliwell, J. F. (2011). Institutions as enablers of wellbeing: The Singapore prison case study. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1, 255-265.

Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, Biological Sciences, 359, 1435-1446.

Hirst, G., van Dick, R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 963-982.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200.

Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast III, D. E. (2012). The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychol-ogy, 23, 258-304.

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for deter-mining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60.

House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organi-zations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Jetten, J., Haslam, C., & Haslam, S. A. (Eds.) (2012). The social cure: Identity, health and well-being. New York, NY US: Psychology Press.

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York: HarperCollins. Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Manage-

ment, 20, 403-437. Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., & Jonas, K. (2013). Transformational leadership and performance: An experi-

mental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and work engagement. Jour-nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 543-555.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124.


Kuoppala, J., Lamminpää, A., Liira, J., & Vainio, H. (2008). Leadership, job well-being, and health effects: A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 50, 904-915.

Küpers, W., & Weibler, J. (2008). Inter-leadership: Why and how should we think of leadership and fol-lowership integrally? Leadership, 4, 443-475.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Per-formance, 34, 343-378.

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 99-113.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422. Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to

understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5-39. Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Brenner, S. O. (2008). The effects of transformational leadership on

followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological well-being: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 22, 16-32.

Peters, K. O., Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K. & Steffens, N. K. (2014). To lead, ASPIRe: Building organic organizational identity. In S. Otten, K. van der Zee, & M. Brewer (Eds.), Towards inclusive organiza-tions: Determinants of successful diversity management at work. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 27, 1508-1519.

Platow, M. J., van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, B., & Spears, R. (2006). A special gift we bestow on you for being representative of us: Considering leader charisma from a self-categorization perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 303-320.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in be-havioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Proudfoot, J. G., Corr, P. J., Guest, D. E., & Dunn, G. (2009). Cognitive-behavioural training to change attributional style improves employee well-being, job satisfaction, productivity, and turnover. Person-ality and Individual Differences, 46, 147-153.

Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Lead-ers and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. The Leadership Quar-terly, 16, 547-568.

Reicher, S. D., & Hopkins, N. (1996). SelfǦcategory constructions in political rhetoric; an analysis of Thatcher's and Kinnock's speeches concerning the British miners' strike (1984-5). European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 353-371.

Reicher, S. D., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation: Categorization, contestation, and mobilisation. London: Sage.

Reicher, S. D., & Hopkins, N. (2003). On the science of the art of leadership. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 197-209). Lon-don: Sage.

Reicher, S. D., Spears, R., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The social identity approach in social psychology. In M. S. Wetherell & C. T. Mohanty (Eds.), Sage Identities Handbook (pp. 45-62). London: Sage.

Sani, F., Herrera, M., Wakefield, J. R., Boroch, O., & Gulyas, C. (2012). Comparing social contact and group identification as predictors of mental health. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 781-790.


Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701-716.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of en-gagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.

Schuh, S. C., van Dick, R., Wegge, J., & Haslam, S. A. (2013). Soziale Identität und Stresserleben. In P. Genkova, T. Ringeisen, & F. Leong (Eds.), Handbuch Stress und Kultur: Interkulturelle und kulturverglei-chende Perspektiven (pp. 113-125). Wiesbaden: Springer VS Verlag.

Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.

Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are leaders' well-being, behaviours and style asso-ciated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of three decades of re-search. Work & Stress, 24, 107-139.

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221-232.

Steffens, N. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2013). Power through ‘us’: Leaders’ use of we-referencing language predicts election victory. PLoS ONE, 8, e77952.

Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Kessler, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2013). Leader performance and prototypical-ity: Their inter-relationship and impact on leaders’ identity entrepreneurship. European Journal of So-cial Psychology, 43, 606-613.

Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2013). Up close and personal: Evidence that shared so-cial identity is a basis for the ‘special’ relationship that binds followers to leaders. The Leadership Quarterly. Advance online publication.

Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Platow, M. J., Fransen, K., Yang, J., Jetten, J., Ryan, M. K., Peters, K. O., & Boen, F. (2014). Leadership as social identity management: Introducing the Iden-tity Leadership Inventory (ILI) to assess and validate a four-dimensional model. Unpublished Manu-script. University of Queensland.

Taris, T. W. (2006). Is there a relationship between burnout and objective performance? A critical review of 16 studies. Work & Stress, 20, 316-334.

Tarrant, M., Haggar, M. S., & Farrow, C. V. (2012). Promoting positive orientation towards health through social identity. In J. Jetten, C. Haslam, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social cure: Identity, health and well-being (pp. 39–54). New York: Psychology Press

Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Taylor, H. (2009). Transfer of management training from alternative per-spectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 104-121.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and inter-group relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations, and leadership. In M. E. Turner (Ed.),

Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 25-65). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Pub-lishers.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA, US: Basil Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454-463.

Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & van Dick, R. (2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 235-244.

Usborne, E., & Taylor, D. M. (2010). The role of cultural identity clarity for self-concept clarity, self-esteem, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 883-897.

van Dick, R., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Stress and well-being in the workplace: Support for key proposi-tions from the social identity approach. In J. Jetten, C. Haslam, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social cure: Identity, health and well-being (pp. 175-194). New York, NY US: Psychology Press.


van Dierendonck, D., Haynes, C., Borrill, C., & Stride, C. (2004). Leadership behavior and subordinate well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 165-175.

van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25-37.

van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology, 49, 357-371.

van Knippenberg, D. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and leadership effec-tiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1078-1091.

van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic–transformational leader-ship research: Back to the drawing board? The Academy of Management Annals, 7, 1-60.

van Quaquebeke, N., Kerschreiter, R., Buxton, A. E., & van Dick, R. (2010). Two lighthouses to navi-gate: Effects of ideal and counter-ideal values on follower identification and satisfaction with their leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 293-305.

van Quaquebeke, N., van Knippenberg, D., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2011). More than meets the eye: The role of subordinates' self-perceptions in leader categorization processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 367-382.

Wegge, J., Schuh, S. C., & van Dick, R. (2012). ‘I feel bad’, ‘We feel good’? Emotions as a driver for per-sonal and organizational identity and organizational identification as a resource for serving un-friendly customers. Stress & Health, 28, 123-136.

Wegge, J., van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K., Wecking, C., & Moltzen, K. (2006). Work motivation, organisa-tional identification, and well-being in call centre work. Work & Stress, 20, 60-83.

Wendt, H., Euwema, M. C., & Van Emmerik, I. J. (2009). Leadership and team cohesiveness across cul-tures. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 358-370.

Yammarino, F. J., & Dansereau, F. (2008). Multi-level nature of and multi-level approaches to leader-ship. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 135-141.

Yammarino, F. J., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K., & Shuffler, M. L. (2012). Collectivistic leadership approaches: Putting the “we” in leadership science and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psy-chology, 5, 382-402.

Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2002). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451-483.

Order Form / all prices in EURO / all prices inclusive VAT*

Order / Subscription Delivery charge

all countries except Germany

Zeitschrift f. Personalforschung 1-4/2014 + IP or password access 2005-2013 80,00 13,80

Zeitschrift f. Personalforschung 1-4/2014 + IP or password access 2005-2013

80,00 13,80

air mail

Zeitschrift f. Personalforschung 1-2/2013 39,80 3,45

Total

Within European Union: Payment after getting the invoice. Payment per credit card: Please charge my / our credit account [ ] American Express [ ] Visa [ ] Master Card [ ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Credit account no: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Expiry date: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Card security code: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Name (as it appears on credit card): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Date + Signature: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Payment per cheque: Cheques should be made payable to Rainer Hampp Verlag and be drawn on a German bank. _____________________________________________________________

FAX ++49 8233 30755 oder e-mail: [email protected]

_____________________

Rainer Hampp Verlag ______________________________

Marktplatz 5

D – 86415 Mering, Germany ______________________________ (delivery address)

* For European companies: please add VAT: _________________________________________

______________________________________ (legally binding signature)

Documents

Special issue Health promotion through leadership edited